Still got that bug
gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Jan 8 17:20:08 PST 2001
On January 7, 2001 05:56 pm, Neven Has wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 04:30:47PM -0500, Simon Perreault wrote:
> > > Of course, all this raises another thing.
> > > We have to be able to correct any errors without exiting. Like
> > > temporarily exiting to shell or something like that.
> > You mean, asking the user
> > An error has been encountered. Do you wish to
> > (C)ontinue, Open a (s)hell so that you can fix it and then resume the
> > building, (A)bort
> Exactly. We can add that for our convenience for now.
> But in general, that should probably be left for the frontend to do.
> Backend should just inform it that the error occurred.
As you may have read in the roadmap on alfs site, at the error
checking/logging phase the backend should not just inform about an error but
try a couple of known ways to overcome the error (ie: if it comes across
"-lncurses" not found during static bash, have it check to see if the
libncurses.a symlink is missing and if so, create it, or have it link iwth
the libcurses.a file instead (requires a sed-like operation on Makefile)).
This "known problems+fixes" list will increase at time as we encounter more
problems so the backend will become smarter. But, in light of being able to
have more than one backend the backend should remain a simple thing perhaps.
So that problems+fixes part should be dealt with in some other way.
-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
More information about the alfs-discuss